SUNITA BHARDWAJ Vs. SHIELA DIXIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.11.2011 issued by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India indicating the President's decision on the report dated 18.07.2011 of the Lokayukta, National Capital Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has also sought the issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to act strictly in accordance with Section 12 of the Delhi Lokayukta and Uplokayukta Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').

(2.) The said report of the Lokayukta was the culmination of an inquiry conducted by him on a complaint (complaint No.C-244/LOK/2009) made by the petitioner, who has described herself as a practicing advocate in Delhi and also as a political activist. In the said complaint, the petitioner had alleged that the respondent No.1, who was the Chief Minister of Delhi, had made a false representation that 60,000 flats were ready for being handed over to the poor under the "Rajiv Ratan Awas Yojna" on the eve of the elections in the year 2008. By an order dated 27.11.2009, the Lokayukta directed issuance of notice to the respondent No.1 for holding an inquiry into the allegations made in the complaint under Section 7 of the said Act read with Section 2(b) of the said Act, returnable on 16.12.2009. Thereafter, the response of the respondent No.1, as also of the respondent No.2, was considered. The relevant record produced by the Department of Urban Development, Government of NCT of Delhi, the affidavits filed by various officers of the Department as well as the written and oral submissions of the complainant and the respondent No.1, were considered and the inquiry was concluded by the Lokayukta.

(3.) The inquiry conducted by the Lokayukta culminated in the said report dated 18.07.2011. The Lokayukta was of the view that the petitioner / complainant had been able to establish that the respondent No.1 had misused her position for gain or favour to herself and her political party by misrepresenting to the public on the issue of allotting / handing over 60,000 flats to the poor and he was further of the view that the respondent No.1 was actuated, in the discharge of her functions as a public functionary, by improper motives for her personal and party interest. It was also his view that the respondent No.1 had acted in a manner which lacked faithfulness as she had misrepresented to the public, including the voters, by giving misleading and false information for the purpose of advantage in the ensuing elections. The Lokayukta also took the view that the respondent No.1 failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct expected of a public functionary occupying the august chair of the Chief Minister of Delhi. Consequently, the Lokayukta, by virtue of his report dated 18.07.2011, recommended to the President of India (respondent No.2 herein), who was the competent authority under the said Act, to administer a caution to respondent No.1 to be careful in publication of her messages in future in view of the present instance.